Tobacco Documents Online

~ ~~~•.11 RADIO TV REPORTS, INC. 4 701 Ufl_..1"'lJCD /'1Vtir•VUC. 7Yf'1J`11NGiLiN. L-) C 2LC 1~ FOR THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. PROGRAM ST.anGtv W E TA F M Whose Rights" NPR Network Town Meeting: "Smoking: DATE August 23, 1979 10:30 AM v~ Washington, DC `IIIBJCCs Fu I I Text RICH FIRESTONE: Welcome to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. I'm Rich Firestone with another in the series of National Town Meetings. Today's topic is "Smoking: Whose Rights?" The panelists are John M. Pinney, Director of the Department of HEW's Office on Smoking and Health; John F. Banzhaf IJI, Executive Director, Action on Smoking and Health; and William Dwyer, a Vice President of the Tobacco Institute. Now, here is the moderator of.today's National Town Meeting, Frank Fitzmaurice of National Public Radio. FRANK FITZMAURICE: Good morning, and welcome to National Town Meeting. Today's topic is "Smoking: Whose Rights?" It's been 15 years now since the Surgeon Generals report on the he4ith hazards of smoking toba-cco:`_`More recently, though, the public has been bombarded with information on the hazards of not smoking -- or, more precisely, the effects of other people's tobacco smoke on the nonsmoker. H The American Medical Association said a few years ago that at least 34 million Americans can be considered sensitive to other people's cigarette smoke, in one way or another. T'~?.~ While research continues into what's really in cigar- ette smoke and such things as the development of a safe cigar- ette, the focus of the cigarette debate has now shifted from health to civil rights. The Tobacco Institute has been sharply critical of national and local efforts to restrict public smo- king, calling It an assault on the smoker's personal freedom. The opposition, most notably the Action on Smoking and Health QFPCzS tN r.E: ro,'<K • • cHiCaGO • D, T• AND O+riER PRiNGPAL GTtES +/a er a x G-.. ea oy aoo op r.er~or s. ,c ^wy e sec ' t. e^^ 2`e e xe F r esCS a-'Jy N -naY r•C G& fEr rA,.cc~7 5d0 or ry•U.^: y aH~,p+l5tiotBtl Cx 3xni0000. .

2 group, has been equally militant, from promoting the economic benefits of smoke-free workplaces to employers, to promoting no-smoking sections on airplanes, trains and buses. They've coined a phrase, too. They call it involuntary smoking. And chances are, in your hometown measures for restricting smoking in restaurants, offices and public buildings are now being debated, or may actually be already in force. Then there's the federal government. In January 1978, then-HEW Secretary Joseph Califano announced a major-federal anti-smoking campaign aimed mainly at reducing the cigarette habit among the nation's teenagers. He called it public health enemy number one. Shortly thereafter, Califano himself became public energy number one in North Carolina. And the political fallout from Tobacco Row should not be discounted in any discussion of Califano's recent involuntary resignation. Just this past January, the current Surgeon General released another report, restating and expanding the 1964 fin- dings, underlining the particular risks to women who smoke. Pregnant smokers, the report said, give birth to sma(ler and less healthy babies. But the report was inconclusive on the subject of involuntary smoking, to coin that phrase. The evidence, it said, is too new and too limited to determine if somebody elsets smoke •is a hazard to your health. John M. Pinney, here today, our first speaker, as Director of HEW's Office on Smoking and Health, supervised the preparation of that 1200-page document. His office is respon- sible for managing HEW's anti-smoking publicity campaign and for collecting and distributing the latest scientific informa- tion on the subject. Mr. Piriney. JOHN M. PINNEY: Thank you very much. I think it'd be very useful for this audience to know a little bit about how the federal government and, for that matter, the major voluntary health agencies in this country -- the Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Heart Association got into the business of warning people about he hazards of smo- king. Cigarette smoking didn't really take off in American until about 1915. From that time onwards, cigarette consumption increased. By about 1955, over half the men in this country smoked cigarettes regularly. ,Ir T1.1.39,12 TIMN 0112754

3 As early as the 1930s -= and on a National in 1939, for example -- scientists expressed concern ette smoking, mostly as the result of an increase in of lung cancer. In 1930, less dying of this disease. By the 18,000. And, incidentally, in Town Meeting about cigar- the incidence than 3000 people were listed as 1950s, this number had grown to 1979, the number will reach 100,000. By the 1950s, the evidence implicating smoking as a cause of iiiness and death became overpowering. And this led, in 1962, to a request from President Kennedy that the federal govern- ment assess the problem. The request came from those same volun- tary health agencies -- Cancer, Lung and Heart -- and from the American Public Health Association. The result was the 1964 Surgeon General's report, which established the relationship between smoking and disease and death. The findings of that report have since been endorsed by virtually every country and every medical society in the world. With the publication of the 1964 report, cigarette smoking began to inch downwards, in terms of per capita consump- tion and in terms of the percentage of U.S. population who smoke. Today, only about 37 percent of men smoke, compared to 57 percent in the middle-1950s; and about 30 percent of women. And per capita consumption of cigarettes is lower now than at any time since 1958. Last January, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the report that Frank mentioned, a 15th anniver- sary report, bringing up to date the enormous amount of research which had been accomplished since 1954. This report, 1200 pages, was roughly three to four times as large as the report issued in 1964, and was an accurate reflection of the increased evidence linking smoking to disease. Some of the research was financed by the tobacco indus- try. The evidence added up to an even more damaging indictment of smoking than that that was issued in 1964. Today I want to be as respons i ve to th i s aud i ence as I can, but I want you to remember that I'm an administrator and not a physician or a scientist. I will not attempt, as a layman, to talk about medical or scientific questions. I will, however, attempt to get questions answered after this meeting if they're beyond my ability to answer. I'd like to make one other point. Although I'm a government employee, I don't want anyone to think that the smoking and health issue is some kind of battle between govern- ment and private industry. The struggle to contain the health effects of smoking was started a long time ago by physicians and scientists and health agencies and educators. And in my TIMN 0112755 T•~a.3agr+.3 TS .

4 opinion, the federal government was a Johnny-come-lately to this public health problem. But we are principals now. Thank you. FITZMAURICE: Thank you, Mr. Pinney. [Appiause] FITZMAURICE: Our next speaker is Mr. William F. Dwyer, Vice President of the Tobacco Institute, a nonprofit organization whose members are the tobacco product manufacturers. Mr. Dwyer's a frequent commentator on issues involving tobacco and cigarettes. You may have heard him defending smokers' rights on any one of his numerous public appearances. Mr. Dwyer has worked for the federal government and is also a former broadcast journalist. Mr. William Dwyer. WILLIAM DWYER: Thank you, Mr. Fitzmaurice. Mr. Pinney, Mr. Banzhaf, ladies and gentlemen. I thought, after what John Pinney said about how much has. been imparted, it might be useful to test the level of aware- ness of this audience on these asserted health effects of smoking. I'd like to conduct a 14-word recitation for you, and then ask, at its conclusion, if those who are meeting this information for the first time would so indicate by raising their hands. Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. May I see the hands of those for whom this is a new piece of information, hearing it for the first time? No. I've asked that question, I guess, before thousands, and never seen a hand. Frank, if I do, we'll call National Public Radio so that your news department can interview a cave dweller. For discussion and debate, let's pose a couple of per- tinent questions. First, to what extent should a free society invite government into personal matters, like cigarette smoking? In a case that went alI the way to the Supreme Court, the federal courts said they didn't belong in the issue. You'Il recall some anti-smokers in New Orleans wanted to block smoking in the Louisiana Superdome. The first judge to hear the case dismissed it. He's a nonsmoker, but he ruled that those who would use the Constitution to protect themselves from cigarette smoke were mocking its lofty purposes. The case went on appeal. M'IN 0112756 T-11,39.4r4 3 ~;1. :.. f `-'`~y~

5 His decision of dismissal was upheld. And finally, ultimately to the Supreme Court, and they refused to review It. Another question: Hasn't history taught us the futility of prohibition? Sociologists now are beginning to discuss the parallels that exist between the anti-saloon forces early in this century and those in the anti-smoking sector today. For example, they see similarity in the crusading nature of such movements, the fact that these movements spawn moral entrepreneurs, or those who develop a vested or career or political interest in the busi- ness of social reform. And the sociologists also point to how the anti-smoking forces are now advocating coercive and legal restraints, since their ends haven't been served by educational or assimilative tactics. We recall Santayana's admonition, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Finally, let's understand that I do represent the cigar- ette manufacturers. This is not "The Good Smokers League" before you. We don't have the last or final word, but we have a point of view. We have been drawn into this debate because our product has been incriminated. But it isn't so much that our product is there in the gun sights of the adversary, but, as well, because those who chose to smoke: the consumers. Now, we believe that they are, as I suggested at the outset, adequately on notice of what many believe to be the health hazards of smoking. However, when the government or voluntary agencies or any who are disposed to be noble move from information to intervention, then the social cost is larger than any of us can calculate; it's tyranny. Thank you. [Applause] F I TZMAUR I C E: Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. I think our next speaker can be counted on to disagree. John Banzhaf III is Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health. ASH is a tax-exempt organization which Mr. Banzhaf founded in 1968, shortly after he had personally simultaneously ,jolted the tobacco industry and the broadcasting industry by successfully convincing the U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold free radio and television time for anti-smoking messages. That even- tually led to the broadcasting industry's ban on cigarette com- mercials on TV and radio. Mr. Banzhaf is also a lawyer and professor of law and legal activism at the National Law Center of George Washington University. TIMN 0112757 T~IO-1,39,`5 s:.^.~. .~ i• ~;WyyaY' " .

6 Mr. Banzhaf. JOHN BANZHAF III: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm sorry I don't have a fancy prepared speech, as my colleagues on the panel do. But I would like to try to respond to the issue here, and that is, "Who's Rights?" Action on Smoking and Health believes that a nonsmoker has a right to breathe air unpolluted by tobacco smoke. In con- trast, we believe that the smoker, who's, after all, only enga- ging in a habit, does not have a legal right or a moral right, but rather a privilege, a privilege which can and should be limited where the exercise of that privilege begins to interfere with those around him. The reasons for this are rather simple. First, study after study shows that the majority of nonsmokers -- or, as they're sometimes called, involunary smo- kers -- find it very annoying to be seated near a smoker. Study after study also shows that the average nonsmoker suffers real and physical irritation -- runny eyes, nose; coughing, sneezing, headaches, and so on -- upon being exposed to cigarette smoke, in many situations. Indeed, the level of cigarette smoke and of the contaminants from cigarette smoke in many indoor areas exceeds those levels regarded as safe by the federal government either for outdoor air or for exposure to occupational workers. I'm rather suprised that the federal government didn't find that and report it in its most recent Surgeon GeneraJ's study. Indeed, in 1972 they did come out more strongly, pointing out the risks and problems that ambient tobacco smoke creates for the nonsmoker. And for some reason, they seem to have re- treated. But to copy a technique from Mr. Dwyer, we can conduct a little bit of a study right here. How many people out in this audience have a problem with ambient tobacco smoke when you're exposed to it? Could you raise your hands? How many people would say you have a serious problem that causes you to cough or sneeze or take medication, and so on? Mr. Moderator, I think you'll agree with me that a substantial majority of the people here are raising their hands. And if the federal government couldn't find these people and report on them, maybe they should be looking a I ittle bit harder. - It also appears that approximately 30 million Americans have a variety of conditions which make them particularly suscep- tible to the problems of smoke: allergies, hay fever, heart con- ditions, lung conditions, respiratory diseases, and so on. For these people, smoking is not just an annoyance and an irritation, TIMN 0112758 T1- .1 .319,16 n......-- <

7 it is a serious health hazard. People have been forced to go to a hospital, people have been forced to take medication, people have collapsed, people have fainted from exposure to tobacco smoke. These have been documented. Theyfre in the files of various federal regulatory agencies. They have been involved in lawsuits. Indeed, there are some people who are so sensitive to tobacco smoke that they are being forced out of their jobs, they cannot go to most restaurants in a city like Washington, and in one case, for example, cannot even go into a post off'ice lobby to mail a letter. Imagine the indignity of having to stand out- side in the street and pay someone to go into that post office lobby because others are smoking in there and they cantt go in. Th i s i s a true story. For these reasons, we believe that the nonsmoker has a right, both a legal and a moral right, not to breathe tobacco smoke. Smoking is not simply an expression of freedom, Bill. It's the source of pollution. It is a major source of pollution, a major source of indoor air pollution. And we have long since recognized that the government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to put reasonable and appropriate limits on sources of pol lution. Smoking is also a habit. It's very akin, for example, to chewing spitting tobacco. People derive exactly the same satisfaction. Yet, I don't think even you would say that the chewer and spitter has a right to do it in a restaurant, in public places, or that there should be a chewinl-and-spittin' section on an airplane. [Laughter] There are lots of habits that people engage in: chewing and spitting, playing loud radios, running around in various states of undress, burning incense. And, Bill, we have no objection at all if these people would like to do it in the privacy of their own homes, where others are not going to be affected. But when they start doing it in public places, when it begins to seriously affect other people around them, we feel they have a right to say no, and the government has an obligation to prevent it. Now, you did mention a case that went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and the nonsmoker lost. But, of course, he was basing that on the Constitution. And you're probably right. There's nothing in the Constitution about smoking and not smoking. TIMN 0112759 .= T'"

8 What you failed to mention, Bill, Jersey, for example, where a court held, as that smoking creates serious air pollution, who is sensitive to it had a legal right to banned, not simply smoking is a case up in New a matter of fact, and that a worker have all smoking and no-smoking sections. There are now a number of cases where nonsmokers have brought legal actions and have one. And more and more of them are co l 1 ect i ng money. And i f you read our news I etters -- I' m sure you do -- you find about about them. You talked about the futility of prohibition, Bill. Weli, they said exactly the same thing when we began to realize, back near to the turn of the century, that chewing and spitting was not just annoying and irritating, it was also a health hazard. The chewers and spitters said, "You can't prohibit us from doing this. We have a god-given right to do it. It will never work. We'll do it despite the prohibitions." And yet, in not too many years this habit was, if not ended, at least taken out of polite company. There are many laws which work only in part: our anti-littering laws on the street, New York's pooper scooper for dog pollution. They said it wouldn't work. And yet, reasonable tests of these, and nonsmoking laws arount the country, have shown that they can do it. And, Bill, this isn't prohibition. You know it and I know it. We have no objection whatsoever if you and the other folks who want to smoke want to go into smokeasies and smoke all day long. We just object that you do it around us. [Applause] Finally, Bill, there is no Good Smokers League, there are no national organizations standing up for the rights of smokers here. Because the funny thing is, this isn't a smoker- versus-nonsmoker•battle. A third of the nonsmokers -- I'm sorry. A third of the smokers interviewed in a recent survey by HEW indicated that they, themselves, found it annoying to be seated near a smoker. And a majority, a majority of smokers, as well as nonsmokers, said they believe there should be more restric- tions on smoking in public places. Every major survey that I have seen says exactly the same thing. And it is working. Any of you who get on a plane every day can see that it is working. We now have only five states, five states in this entire country which do not have some kind of state or local ordinance restricting smoking in public places. Some of them work weil. Some of them don't work so well. But they all work better than no laws at all. And that's the direction. TIMN 0112760 T1.1.;? 9,`.8 3~-

9 Bill, nonsmoking laws are an idea whose time has come. You can fight 'em, but they're coming. [Applause] FITZMAURICE: Now, as the audience, it's your turn to ask the speakers today questions.... I'm the moderator. I'il ask the first question to Mr. Dwyer from the Tobacco Institute. Mr. Dwyer, not long ago, your organization took out rather extensive ads in national magazines, two-page spreads, addressed to smokers and nonsmokers. Your organization made a strong case against restrictive laws, laws restricting smoking In public places, and so on. You charge that anti-smoking organ- i zat i ons were try i ng to erect wa I I s between smokers and nonsmo- kers, to use the organization's phrase. My question is, what's the problem with segregating s.mokers and nonsmokers? It seems that it would probably be more comfortable for both involved. As Mr. Banzhaf indicated, nobody is really all that happy with a smoker sitting next to a non- smoker. Both seemed to be inconvenienced. What's the problem with segregating? Why is your organization opposed? DWYER: Nothing is the problem with -- I would prefer the term separating, rather than segregating. It's always been rather interesting to me that the CAB and the ICC, who put smokers in the rear of the conveyance, as a sociologist says, which has an observable practice of status symbolization difficult to ignore, refer to segregation. Here we broke down those barriers that used to divide people on pretty untoward bases, and now we've got federal governments that are at least giving an imprimatur of acceptance to it. Frank, we say let's have separate seating for smokers and nonsmokers for their mutual comfort and convenience. I only draw the line at the necessity of inviting government into the act. I don't want to call 911 and say, "Hey, come down here. Someone's smoking." Not with rapes and robberies and murders and muggings. I'm a citizen, ladies and gentlemen, of this com- munity; and we not only have grime and congestion, we have crime here in Washington. And I'd like the metropolitan police force dedicated to that, not to the annoyance of cigarette smoking. You see, I concede that my smoke can be a bother, can be difficult to someone else. Just tell me, Manager, Proprietor, Owner, Operator, where the smoking section is, and I'II go there. Or hang on the front of your restaurant a sign that says, "Ain't no smoking allowed on these premises." Then I take my patronage i TIlVIN 0112761 T~~.1 .3 9, " 9

to to another place. That's called democracy of the marketplace. I'm voting my preference with my pocketbook. That satisfies smokers and nonsmokers. That's the big audience. The anti-smokers_are a small but vocal core of -- I have to say it -- neo-prohibitionists. They are reformers. They are those people, essentially a joyless tribe -- None of them is here this morning, however. I insist on that•, of course -- who want to manage everyone else's life, perhaps be- cause they' ve been i ncapab i e of manag i ng the i r own. , [Applause] BANZHAF: I've got to reply to that, Frank. It's very interesting that the tobacco industry attacks the proponents of an idea rather than the idea itself. And that's what i t's do i ng when it says that a i I of us out here and all of us around the country who are concerned about the air we breathe are anti-smoking fanatics and radicals. It's funny, we must be doing something right against your multimillion-doilar carnpaigns.... [Tape turned] BANZHAF: I agree with you, Bili. I agree with you we shouldn't have the police force running around arresting smokers. A good experience is D.C. We've had a law on the books here for over 2 1/2 years. There's only been one pro- secution under it. I know 'cause I brought it. The guy wanted to punch me out. The police haven't been involved. There have been no mass arrests. Smokers aren1t languishing in jail. But those of you who are residents of the District of Columbia will know that the law works reasonably well, better than none at all. Why not leave it up to the individual restaurants, Bill? Wett, why not? Why don't we let a restaurant owner de- cide if he's going to allow chewing and spitting? Or bring in dogs and cats into the restaurant? Or walking around bare- chested, or walking in bare-footed? Or why shouldn't we let them decide whether or not to wash their hands? about. DWYER: They do. That's what a dress code is all BANZHAF: Well, maybe in the restaurants you go to they do that. I've never seen one. The point is very simple. Where we're talking about TIMN 0112762 T-11-39"